alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015213EN.01000802.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), B. Wilson v WW Realisation 1 Ltd, in liquidation, Ethel Austin Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

(Case C-80/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a) - Meaning of ‘establishment’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))

(2015/C 213/12)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants/Respondents: Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), B. Wilson

Claimants/Respondents:

Defendants/Appellants: WW Realisation 1 Ltd, in liquidation, Ethel Austin Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

Defendants/Appellants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘establishment’ in Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted in the same way as the term in Article 1(1)(a)(i) of that directive.

Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that lays down an obligation to inform and consult workers in the event of the dismissal, within a period of 90 days, of at least 20 workers from a particular establishment of an undertaking, and not where the aggregate number of dismissals across all of the establishments or across some of the establishments of an undertaking over the same period reaches or exceeds the threshold of 20 workers.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

1

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50279 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROSENDO MONTES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-91-CR-159(9)

- - - - - - - - - - February 21, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rosendo Montes appeals the district court’s denial of an additional one-level reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(b) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the district court did not address whether he timely assisted the Government by cooperating. The record indicates that Montes did not enter a guilty plea until approximately two weeks before trial which did not enable the Government to avoid preparing for trial. Although theNo. 96-50279 - 2 - district court did not expressly state whether Montes timely cooperated with the Government, the district court implicitly determined that Montes did not satisfy the requirements for an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Montes has not shown that the district court clearly erred in denying the additional reduction. See United States v. Tello , 9 F.3d 1119, 1124-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
DLA Aviation’s Industrial Gas Support Program for CENTCOM

(This program does NOT include Class 1 Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) –

Continue to use established ODS Program procedures and Points of Contact)

DLA Aviation, Richmond awarded an industrial gas support contract to Inchcape Shipping 

Services of Dubai, UAE (CAGE Code: 1NSLW), to supply industrial compressed gases to Military 

and Federal activities in the CENTCOM Theater of Operations in Southwest Asia. The 

CENTCOM Cylinder & Gas Support Program includes:

• Supplies a menu of compressed and liquefied gases in a variety of cylindersizes.

• Delivers full cylinders to the customer’s site.

• Charges for product only. No extra charge for returnable reusablecylinders.

• Pick up for empty reusable cylinders from the customer’s site (in mostcases).

Continue to order Industrial Gas requirements using Service/Government agency automated 

ordering systems using MILSTRIP/FEDSTRIP (Standard Form 344) or shop online through DoD 

FedMall.

For Navigation, Ordering Assistance or Procedural issues with FedMall please contact the 

Customer Interaction Center at:

DSN CONUS/OCONUS: 877-352-2255 or Email: dlacontactcenter@dla.mil

Industrial Gas & Cylinder Program information available at: 

https://www.dla.mil/Aviation/Offers/Products/Commodities.aspx

For additional gas NSNs not available for ordering off the CENTCOM contract, customers may 

order off the CONUS contract as it supplements the CENTCOM contract for those items not 

available. Customers must keep in mind the transit time when ordering off the CONUS contract.

For additional information on the Industrial Gas & Cylinder program, please contact the Program 

Manager at (804) 279-5477 (DSN 695).
No. 10-7899.

#### Ahmad Bishawi, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1190, 131 S. Ct. 1025,

178 L. Ed. 2d 848,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 875.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Bernabe Encarnacion, Appellant, v Michael McGinnis, as Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 708]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (O’Brien, III, J.), entered February 11, 2003 in Chemung County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

In 1996, petitioner, an inmate, was charged with the stabbing death of a fellow inmate. Following a jury trial, petitioner was found guilty of the crimes of murder in the second degree and promoting prison contraband in the first degree and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 25 years to life.

In December 2002, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that various violations of his constitutional and procedural rights in the course of his criminal prosecution mandate his release from prison. Given that these contentions could have been raised by petitioner upon his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction *(People v Encarnacion,*269 AD2d 779 [2000], *lv denied*94 NY2d 918 [2000]) or in the context of the motions he has filed pursuant to CPL article 440, habeas corpus relief is unavailable *(see People ex rel. Mammarello v Donnelly,*286 AD2d 937 [2001]; *People ex rel. Woods v Walker,*283 AD2d 991, 991-992 [2001], *appeal dismissed, lv denied*96 NY2d 928 [2001]). Even if the issues raised by petitioner had merit, under the circumstances presented here, habeas corpus relief would be inappropriate as it would not bring about his immediate release from prison *(see People ex rel. Beam v Hodges,*286 AD2d 936, 937 [2001]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
1491l1-IJ-PI 

### DEPARTMENT OF.TR'U'lSPORTA nON """ •• 't'••• , >t.""" "''"'''ll 

### 14CFR Part39 Federal Aviation Administration

# -

IOU,'7 (Docket No. Ii'

AA-ZOlO--**'**; 

### Directorate Ideotifier 2010-NM-IOl-ADI RIN 212l1-AA64 Air""'ortbiness Directives; Airbus Model 

### A31i8, A319, A320, and A321 Series Airpla 

### AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of propos cd rulcmaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt anew airwonhiness directive (AD) for the product listed above that would supersede an existing 

### AD. This proposed AD results from , 1/(, TJ



## II.'"'' mandatory continuing airworthiness inforrnatiQn (MeAl) originated byan aviation 1.-" .(~. ,," prodllCt. 

### The MeAldescribes the WlSafecondition as: 

### authority ofanother country 

### toidentify andcorrect 

### an unsafe condition all 

### anaviation

,/ ,) ,':> /..-- 

### .,"


# • 

# • • • • 

# • • • A dual servo-control disconnection on the same elevator could result in an uncontrolled surface. the elevator surface being neither actuated nor damped, which could lead to reduced control of the aeroplane . Further to this finding, addilional inspections have revealed cracking at thc same location on a number of other servo-control rod eye-ends. In several cases., both actuators oftbe same elevator surface were affected. The root 

### cause ofthe cracking hasnotyet 

### been determined 

### andtests areongoing. One case of elevator servo-control disepnnection has been experienced on an aeroplane oflhe A320 family. Investigation has revealed that the failure



# , occulTcd atthe servo-control rod eye-eod.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended 10address the unsafe condili n 

### ,'" described in the 

### MeAl.
# Schedule B7

&"Times New Roman,Bold"&12SPE4A6-15-R-0340		&"Times New Roman,Bold"&12Schedule B7
Amendment No. 2 to Revolving Credit and Security Agreement



 Exhibit 10.6 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
 REVOLVING CREDIT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT 
  
 This AMENDMENT NO. 2
(the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of December 13, 2002 by and between Countrywide Warehouse Lending (“Lender”) and Encore Credit Corp. (“Borrower”). This Amendment amends that certain Revolving Credit and Security Agreement by and between Lender and Borrower dated as of May 13, 2002 (as may be amended from time
to time, the “Credit Agreement”). 
  
 R E C I T A L S 
  
 Lender and Borrower have previously entered into the Credit Agreement pursuant to which Lender may, from time to time, provide Borrower credit in the form
of a warehouse line secured by residential mortgage loans. Lender and Borrower hereby agree that the Credit Agreement shall be amended as provided herein. 
  
 In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
Lender and Borrower hereby agree as follows: 
  
 New Section -
Section 10.11 Repayment of Borrower Obligations. The following new section, numbered Section 10.11 and titled “Repayment of Borrower Obligations,” shall be added to the Credit Agreement: 
  
 “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary,
except for a direct payment from an Investor for a Pledged Mortgage Loan pursuant to Section 4.6 hereof, Borrower shall not cause, or enter into any agreement which would cause, a third party to pay any obligations of Borrower hereunder,
including, without limitation, causing a third party to repay any Advance made hereunder; provided, however, that Borrower may, upon the prior written consent of Lender, which such consent may be withheld In Lender’s sole and absolute discretion, cause a warehouse lender or similar credit provider to repay on behalf of Borrower the Advance related to a
Noncompliant Mortgage Loan that (a) is non-compliant because such loan exceeded its Maximum Dwell Time and (b) there are no other Noncompliant Mortgage Loans which have exceeded the Maximum Dwell Time longer than such loan.” 
  

	2.	No Other Amendments. Other than as expressly modified and amended herein, the Credit Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and nothing herein shall affect
the rights and remedies of Lender as provided under the Credit Agreement. 

  

	3.	Capitalized Terms. Any capitalized term used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Credit Agreement.


  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lender and Borrower have caused their names
to be signed hereto by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized as of the date first written above. 
  

									
	COUNTRYWIDE WAREHOUSE LENDING	 	 	 	ENCORE CREDIT CORP.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas C. Williams
	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Steve Holder

	 	 	 Signature
	 	 	 	 	 	 Signature

	 Name:
	 	 Thomas C. Williams
	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Steve Holder

	 Title:
	 	 President
	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Chairman
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17732]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 98-088]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.

DATES: July 6, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Vrioni, Patent Counsel, Kennedy 
Space Center, Mail Stop MM-E, at (407) 867-6225.
    NASA Case No. KSC-11940: Conducting Composition of Matter;
    NASA Case No. SSC-00049: Plant Chlorophyll Content Imager;
    NASA Case No. SSC-00050: Plant Chlorophyll Content Meter.

    Dated: June 25, 1998.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-17732 Filed 7-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.3  CFO CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Erie Family Life Insurance Company
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Philip A. Garcia, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
of the Company.

/s/ Philip A.
Garcia
Philip A. Garcia
Executive Vice President & CFO

March 27, 2003

132
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-51030 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ELIUTH SOSA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-00-CR-387-1-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eliuth Sosa-Garcia appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sosa argues that his sentence should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Sosa acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000).No. 00-51030 - 2 - Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Sosa’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
| (1)              | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                             |                                                | Metwood,      Inc.               |
|----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                             |                                                |
|                             |                                                |                             |
| Date: October      14, 2008 | By:                                       | /s/ Robert      M. Callahan |
|                             | Robert      M. CallahanChief      Executive Officer |

| (1)              | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                             |                                               | Metwood,      Inc.              |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                             |                                               |
|                             |                                               |                            |
| Date: October      14, 2008 | By:                                      | /s/ Shawn      A. Callahan |
|                             | Shawn      A. CallahanChief      Financial Officer |
#### *State, Respondent, v. Jenks, Petitioner,*

No. 92023-1.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 29641-5-III, June 25, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 1030. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Corey Fredette, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 433]

— Appeal from a *1452judgment of Cayuga County Court (Corning, J.), entered April 22, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree and escape in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that he is entitled to specific performance of the alleged plea agreement based on County Court’s failure to abide by the terms of that agreement. “The promise that defendant contends was made does not appear in the record, and defendant agreed at the time of his guilty plea that no sentencing promise had been made” *(People v Gramling,*269 AD2d 825, 825 [2000], *lv denied*94 NY2d 948 [2000]; *see People v Salvagni,*199 AD2d 680 [1993]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
# C_2015138EN.01002302.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-238/14) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Occasional workers in the entertainment arts - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 5(1) - Measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts - Concept of ‘objective grounds’ justifying such contracts))

(2015/C 138/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by maintaining in force, with respect to occasional workers in the entertainment arts, derogations from the measures designed to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work of 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by maintaining in force, with respect to occasional workers in the entertainment arts, derogations from the measures designed to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work of 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

1

---
Earthjustice and US EPA

Meeting

May 17, 2012

A meeting was held today to discuss general issues surrounding the National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement Plants, Reconsideration Notice.

Attendees:

Jim Pew and clients, Earthjustice

US EPA:

By teleconference:

Sharon Nizich

Keith Barnett

Steve Fruh

Peter Tsirigotis

Steve Page

In person:

Don Zinger

Gina McCarthy

Janet McCabe